If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

That pretty much everybody - Assad, the Syrian civilians, Syrian-Americans, Jordan, Israel, the militias, Russia, the Democrats, the Republicans - is demanding that we do or don't do something simultaneously, it's clearly up in the air no matter what. I suspect Obama will take this opportunity provided by Putin to choose a different tack, because whatever he is, he's not an ideological hardliner.

I strongly dislike Chomsky (though he's entertaining in a rockman29 sort of way) but I admittedly like the Putin escape route angle.

Obama may not be a hardliner, but again, why even bother with the red line and credibility talk? I'm baffled by Obama's reasoning; what credibility does the international community (even including Russia) or a minimal Franco-American alliance-of-necessity have to preserve in the Middle East? The belligerents involved don't think we have a face that can be saved afaict.

I am just surprised it is so frowned upon to suggest that the US government still subscribes to the paradigm of American exceptionalism. That's exactly what US foreign policy is still all about.

It was omnipresent in the interview on CNN with Obama trying to sell his "limited strike" attack on Syria, despite the fact he definitely greenlighted the supporting of death and destruction of Syria by terrorists and mercenaries who undoubtedly fought and killed American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wolf Blitzer asked Obama to "look into the camera and tell Assad exactly what you are going to do."

The arrogance of the American media and American government is unparalleled. Obama, doing one thing right thankfully... declined to be part of CNN's stupid game of one-up-man ship on international TV media.

The suggestion that US is righteous in it's policy towards Syria is nothing short of despicable. It is complicit in the deaths of tens of thousands of people by supporting and prolonging the civil war and death and killing in the country, in dense and urban centers.

CIA and US government members supporting this paradigm of funding terrorism and mercenaries to fight their wars should be tried for war crimes in international court.

And even further ridiculing the UN or peacekeeping forces around the world, to which over a 100 countries contribute soldiers, and to which 15 peacekeeping missions are currently active. Those countries include Liberia, Ivory Coast, Sudan, Darfur region, Mali, Somalia, and other places that unfortunately no one else gives a shit about, because they don't have oil and they aren't in the middle east.

Interesting fact: UN has been in Syria for years and at least they are one force interested in NOT FIGHTING.

Too bad the US/CIA likes to fund war crimes and terrorist groups under the table and it's a little too big for even the 100,000 total troops of the UN to do anything about.

"Outsiders can play a role, but we should be very humble about what role we have, and certainly we cannot impose what we think the solution should be," Bloodworth said.She is now a senior fellow at the University of Ottawa's school of public and international affairs, which organized the panel discussion.

But there is work to be done through humanitarian aid rather than with military action, she said."I don't think we [in Canada] have enough weight to play any major role in bringing parties together," Bloodworth said."We have done a lot on [the] humanitarian [side]. I think we can do a lot more.... We could do more on refugees. There are two million refugees now."

The federal government has said it will help resettle 200 Syrian refugees, and allow another 1,100 privately sponsored refugees to be placed in Canada. But that's a minute fraction of the number of refugees flooding from Syria to neighbouring Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.The resettlement announced so far is "shameful," said David Petrasek, a former special adviser to the secretary general of Amnesty International"In 1956, we took 50,000 Hungarian refugees. We're a wealthier country today. I find that [1,300-refugee resettlement] a very inadequate response. It's not a good response to what to do about Syria, but it is something our government could be doing,"Petrasek said.

A bit off-topic but the local cable tv has started airing CNN instead of BBC World News for a few months now. How credible is this channel in the States and elsewhere?

I preferred the neutral tone that the newscasters on BBC have about events rather than the seemingly biased one on CNN or maybe that's just me.

We don't have a national organ. I'd argue, however, that NBC hosts the most sober American news broadcasting. It's also the most popular American news network. CNN used to be the biggest cable news network (which is what CNN stands for, and contrasting with the big three broadcasting networks) until Fox News showed up, and Fox News basically exists because of a perceived bias in how NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN reported the news. Unfortunately, in an effort to chase Fox News ratings, CNN adopted the salacious 24-hour blathering that Fox News does.

I don't watch CNN. I do occasionally watch CBS and NBC.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

CNN, just like every other news network on the planet* is biased. Maybe they have a narrative they want to brainwash you into believing, maybe they just prefer to support the political causes they believe in. Hell, maybe they just want to give their viewers what they want. But the end result is that you get a limited view.

But CNN usually doesn't catch the hell Fox does for two real reasons. First, there are LOTS of pro-democrat news stations, there is only fox for the republicans. Second, most of the comedians are very pro-democrat (and since most viewers only know Fox is "bad" from Jon Stewart, the Left-Wing Version of Bill O'Reilley...).

But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It isn't a good thing, but if you are a mature human being, you should be capable of doing your own research on the topics that matter to you and you should also be willing to look at information from multiple sides of the aisle.

Personally, I don't watch the news networks anymore. I have the internet. I would rather skim two or three news articles through google news than listen to talking heads.
But when I did used to watch "the news", I actually preferred to watch Fox as my default network, mostly because their actual news broadcasting (so not O'Reilley, but the ACTUAL news broadcasting...) tended to be mostly neutral and when they DID go off the deep end, it was blatant and was the kind of thing where you can just say "Hmm, really?", mostly because I had been watching them and knew the bullshit they pulled.

*: I have seen many claims that the BBC is truly neutral. As I am not British I can't really argue one way or another, but I will say that, if it is, it is the only one that doesn't have a narrative.

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

Fox is incredibly good at what they do which is entertain their target demographic and occasionally push an American Conservative agenda rather than just pander to it. You can get good news coverage from Fox but it's a crap-shoot. MSNBC is also good at what they do. Is the Democratic answer to the Republican FOX and it's predictably they don't pretend to be "Fair and Balanced" which makes them slightly less obnoxious and hair more likely to deliver solid coverage outside of it's FOX-for-blue-states talk shows. CNN is clearly on the Democratic side of the D/R split in America and it wants to be FOX. Is so desperately WANTS to be FOX. But it's incredibly bad at it. CNN gives fine, sober coverage about as often as FOX does but the moment it tries be be remotely interesting (be that with technology or punditry or talk-shows or whatever) it comes across as not only biased like MSNBC and FOX but clumsy, oafish, and bad at the whole mess. CNN was, initially, substantially more focused on the straight newscasting but now that they've gone after the MSNBC/FOX style of things they've turned into an absolute shit-show of a production.

Our nightly news productions are better in theory, but they're short, sparse, and the last segment is always one of those awful human interest stories. Of the three big nightly broadcasts, I prefer NBC from which MSNBC's non-talk-show folks inherited their professionalism and it's "Yes, we're pro-Democrat so take this with a grain of salt" shtick that makes them so much less obnoxious when they get preachy.

@Gundato

If you watch the news comedians regularly, you'll hear CNN catching plenty of flack. Not the same kind of flack FOX catches, but in my opinion that's more becasue CNN isn't actually as nuts as FOX and their bias comes out less from intentional twisting ala FOX/MSNBC and more ineptitude. MSNBC doesn't catch as much flack though ... and that's probably because Stewart and company have a lot of friends at the network and becasue of shared biases. It's worth noting, though, that MSNBC's slogan isn't "Fair and Balanced" but rather "Lean Forward" and "The Place for Politics"--so they embrace what they're (entertaining and being politically charged respectively) doing while FOX plays pretend and CNN forgets it's lines.

Last edited by gwathdring; 15-09-2013 at 10:42 PM.

I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardustís Music Sounds Better With You. Thereís lots of fog. --tomeoftom

Remember: Fox came into existence to counteract what Murdoch and NewsCorp came to see was a liberal bias in the broadcast networks: NBC, CBS and ABC. That Murdoch is about as far right as you can get without having a waxed mustache to twirl, however, should put that statement into perspective.

The top three broadcast networks are still the top three networks overall. There is a secondary set of cable news networks which is superimposed on that: CNN, Fox and MSNBC. CNN was founded in 1980 and was more or less a cable alternative to the big three until 1996, in which Fox and MSNBC came onto the scene.

CNN's mostly remembered for being the sort of HEADLINE NEWS HERE'S JACK IN THE WARZONE crap since the first Gulf War, and for shows like Crossfire which is just a bunch of nutters yelling at one another. Fox News got real crazy with its Fair and Balanced shit around 2000, and MSNBC started getting an avowed liberal stance around 2008 as a way of shoring up ratings.

Generally speaking, when CNN was competing with CBS and NBC for ratings, they acted not unlike CBS and NBC. When CNN was competing as they are now with Fox for ratings, they acted like Fox.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Agreed. Even our "right-wing" parties here are left-wing by US standards.

Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.
Soldant's Law - A person will happily suspend their moral values if they can express moral outrage by doing so.

The unfortunate part of that is that by being "balanced" it often gives credence and airtime to very bigoted and prejudiced interviewee's and often does not critically question their stances very much, rather than simply just give them space to present their corrupt platform.

Unfortunately compared to the likes of CBC and BBC, CBS still pales in comparison.

Both CBC and BBC have excellent radio programmes which genuinely take interest in promoting fair debate about issues (see: debate on Quebec proposed charter about religious dress for politicians... 10 min debate between a university professor and politician... http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2013/09/11/...gious-symbols/).

That is an example of proper debate. Rarely do I ever see any genuinely competent presentation in US media that seeks to actually critically examine a topic.

Most US networks don't treat their radio programmes seriously, if they even have any proper ones at all. The public radio in the tri-state area is absolutely awful for world news, or even current domestic issues. I haven't heard once on the radio yet of questioning the intervention in Syria, or even questioning the role of US in supplying weapons to alleged terrorists and mercenaries (who aren't so alleged anymore).

It's really no surprise why issues are so polarizing in US. there are so few national outlets which truly intend to make a platform for meaningful discourse.

It's like everyone is a stand-up objectivist here... people subscribe to one dogma or one presentation of the truth and just don't accept anything else as substitute, it's an embarrassing example of democracy.

US media treat stories as JUST stories, and a quick buck. It sucks and it sucks for US democracy. The networks simply don't respect the integrity of the journalism profession. FOX, MSNBC, CNN.... all they want is consistency in their political message. The sad thing is CNN used to be good. Since around 2000 they started acting like FOX.

That is an example of proper debate. Rarely do I ever see any genuinely competent presentation in US media that seeks to actually critically examine a topic.

[...]

US media treat stories as JUST stories, and a quick buck. It sucks and it sucks for US democracy. The networks simply don't respect the integrity of the journalism profession. FOX, MSNBC, CNN.... all they want is consistency in their political message. The sad thing is CNN used to be good. Since around 2000 they started acting like FOX.

They are by no means mainstream, but we do have programs that provide rational discourse. Meet the Press is a nice example as are a few other PBS news programs. We also have some really good long-form TV magazines like 60 minutes, Charlie Rose and Frontline.

There's also NPR which is awesome.

I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardustís Music Sounds Better With You. Thereís lots of fog. --tomeoftom

Fox is incredibly good at what they do which is entertain their target demographic and occasionally push an American Conservative agenda rather than just pander to it. You can get good news coverage from Fox but it's a crap-shoot. MSNBC is also good at what they do. Is the Democratic answer to the Republican FOX and it's predictably they don't pretend to be "Fair and Balanced" which makes them slightly less obnoxious and hair more likely to deliver solid coverage outside of it's FOX-for-blue-states talk shows. CNN is clearly on the Democratic side of the D/R split in America and it wants to be FOX. Is so desperately WANTS to be FOX. But it's incredibly bad at it. CNN gives fine, sober coverage about as often as FOX does but the moment it tries be be remotely interesting (be that with technology or punditry or talk-shows or whatever) it comes across as not only biased like MSNBC and FOX but clumsy, oafish, and bad at the whole mess. CNN was, initially, substantially more focused on the straight newscasting but now that they've gone after the MSNBC/FOX style of things they've turned into an absolute shit-show of a production.

Our nightly news productions are better in theory, but they're short, sparse, and the last segment is always one of those awful human interest stories. Of the three big nightly broadcasts, I prefer NBC from which MSNBC's non-talk-show folks inherited their professionalism and it's "Yes, we're pro-Democrat so take this with a grain of salt" shtick that makes them so much less obnoxious when they get preachy.

@Gundato

If you watch the news comedians regularly, you'll hear CNN catching plenty of flack. Not the same kind of flack FOX catches, but in my opinion that's more becasue CNN isn't actually as nuts as FOX and their bias comes out less from intentional twisting ala FOX/MSNBC and more ineptitude. MSNBC doesn't catch as much flack though ... and that's probably because Stewart and company have a lot of friends at the network and becasue of shared biases. It's worth noting, though, that MSNBC's slogan isn't "Fair and Balanced" but rather "Lean Forward" and "The Place for Politics"--so they embrace what they're (entertaining and being politically charged respectively) doing while FOX plays pretend and CNN forgets it's lines.

I can only stomach so much of the "We are totally not news broadcasters but we are also the only source of news for a disturbingly large portion of the country and we'll mock our colleagues by calling them shoddy news broadcasters", but my recollection is that they will mercilessly attack CNNs editorial shows (Crossfire, ha), but tend to stay pretty quiet on the actual news broadcasting, whereas they go all out against Fox. Of course, that might have changed since even the dems aren't huge on what their party is doing these days

And deepest apologies for using the term americans use to refer to an american group. I assumed context was enough, much as I am capable of understanding that referring to a "Right-wing european group" really means "Referring to a slightly less left-wing". I would use the truly accurate terminology, but I am lazy :p

Originally Posted by gwathdring

There's also NPR which is awesome.

NPR is probably one of the better ones (when it is not just catering to a demographic who act like smug assholes because they listen to NPR :p), but even they have a narrative they push and tend to screw over reporters who try to go against it. A good example is Juan Williams (and all the other folk linked to in the wiki article). Shady and complex subject, but still definitely an example of the kind of biases and the push for a narrative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_wi...l_Public_Radio

With respect to the actual news (not all the other fun stuff they do), I would put NPR as "okay" with respect to being able to report the facts without bias (not necessarily with respect to what facts they report).

Last edited by gundato; 16-09-2013 at 01:44 AM.

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

I can only stomach so much of the "We are totally not news broadcasters but we are also the only source of news for a disturbingly large portion of the country and we'll mock our colleagues by calling them shoddy news broadcasters", [..]

They continually say they have no intention of acting as a serious new broadcast both off and on the show. That some people most of whom are very much aware of this intention still use it as their only source of news shouldn't be put on their shoulders. Every media presenter is at least partially responsible for their image ... but the people who use The Daily Show as their main source of news generally know exactly what it is. So that's kind of a garbage reason to dislike it; it's cool if you just don't like the jokes or personalities or biases, but come on. Jon Stewart in particular does occasionally do the rounds, put on a serious face, and give real, dedicated attention to something as with the 9/11 Responders bill or with his many excellent interviews on other news channels where he provides sober meta-news commentary instead of his customary mockery--but that's not what his show is about and that's not what the audience thinks they're getting out of it.

[...] but my recollection is that they will mercilessly attack CNNs editorial shows (Crossfire, ha), but tend to stay pretty quiet on the actual news broadcasting, whereas they go all out against Fox. Of course, that might have changed since even the dems aren't huge on what their party is doing these days

I think there's a reason for that. I've watched the respective news coverage quite a bit. CNN has become a lot less professional over time and their coverage is kinda wibbly, but it tends to be pretty straightforward. Fox is more professional in their normal coverage, but they let the nuttery leak in from their talk shows into their normal coverage more often. How adverse you are to the nuttery (or how comfortable you are just tuning it out) will determine whether you prefer the sharper but more biased FOX coverage or the weaker but straighter CNN coverage in my experience.

I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardustís Music Sounds Better With You. Thereís lots of fog. --tomeoftom

They continually say they have no intention of acting as a serious new broadcast both off and on the show. That some people most of whom are very much aware of this intention still use it as their only source of news shouldn't be put on their shoulders. Every media presenter is at least partially responsible for their image ... but the people who use The Daily Show as their main source of news generally know exactly what it is. So that's kind of a garbage reason to dislike it; it's cool if you just don't like the jokes or personalities or biases, but come on. Jon Stewart in particular does occasionally do the rounds, put on a serious face, and give real, dedicated attention to something as with the 9/11 Responders bill or with his many excellent interviews on other news channels where he provides sober meta-news commentary instead of his customary mockery--but that's not what his show is about and that's not what the audience thinks they're getting out of it.

I've met WAY too many people who "know it is a joke" yet also never actually question it. A simple example (using saturday night live) are all the many Bush-isms that dubyah never actually said (seriously. He DID use many of them as jokes internally after they became popular). Even "intelligent and educated" colleagues of mine seriously think Dubya said "strategery".

That is my main issue with folk like Stewart and O'Reilley. They are both great at giving comparatively unbiased commentary (at least, when compared to their more extreme colleagues), but they are also such huge hypocritical assholes. "HOW DARE THIS PERSON ADD SPIN TO A POLITICAL SPEECH! HITLER DID THAT TOO!!!". They both pull the same bullshit they complain about but argue that it is "okay" because they are doing "commentary".

I dunno, I think the problem is the format. Both of them "feel" like news shows (largely because of the bullshit 24/7 news cycle), so what would be hilarious in stand-up feels a lot more like spin-fueled brainwashing.

I think there's a reason for that. I've watched the respective news coverage quite a bit. CNN has become a lot less professional over time and their coverage is kinda wibbly, but it tends to be pretty straightforward. Fox is more professional in their normal coverage, but they let the nuttery leak in from their talk shows into their normal coverage more often. How adverse you are to the nuttery (or how comfortable you are just tuning it out) will determine whether you prefer the sharper but more biased FOX coverage or the weaker but straighter CNN coverage in my experience.

I will agree that FOx lets the whackjobs out of their cages too often. But, personally, I prefer to at least be able to say "Okay, Shepard Smith is talking (does he still do Fox?). About 95% of what he reports will be the facts. Oh crap, Hannity. About 1% of what he says will be truthful"

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.